jrnls.org logo
Submit

BROWSE ALL JOURNALS

SEE ALL 19 JOURNALS
International Journal of Pharmaceutical InvestigationNOW IN
Article

Studies on in silico and in vitro Anticancer Activity of Selected Plant Extract Phytocompounds against HeLa and HCT116 Cell Lines

Essakki Subbulakshmi1, Sudalaiyanminudi Kumaresan2, Pandaram Palanisamy1★★ Corresponding author

  1. 1Department of Chemistry, Pioneer Kumaraswamy College, (Affiliated to Manonmaniam Sundaranar University), Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu, INDIA.
  2. 2Department of Chemistry, PSN Group of Institutions, Melathediyoor, Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu, INDIA.

CORRESPONDENCE

Pandaram Palanisamy

Department of Chemistry, Pioneer Kumaraswamy College, (Affiliated to Manonmaniam Sundaranar University), Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu, INDIA.

ppschem08@gmail.com

Received: 20-11-2024; Revised: 05-01-2025; Accepted: 15-03-2025.

Volume 15, Issue 3 · pp. 942–952 · PUBLISHED Jul-Sep 2025 · DOI: 10.5530/ijpi.20250195

View on IJPI original site ↗

ABSTRACT

Background This study explores the phytochemical composition, molecular interactions and cytotoxic potential of ethanolic extracts from four medicinal plants-Solanum virginianum, Hibiscus rosa-sinensis, Piper betle and Eclipta alba-against cervical (HeLa) and colon (HCT116) cancer cell lines. Materials and Methods Qualitative phytochemical analysis was performed to identify bioactive compounds, including proteins, phenols, flavonoids and terpenoids. GC-MS analysis provided insights into key phytoconstituents such as fatty acids, steroids and diterpenoids. Molecular docking evaluated the binding affinities of major compounds like stigmasterol and skimmien against cancer targets, comparing their energies to the reference drug camptothecin. Cytotoxic activity was assessed using IC50 assays. Conclusion Eclipta alba emerged as the most potent extract, showing the lowest IC50 values (30 µg/mL for HeLa and 24 µg/mL for HCT116). Molecular docking revealed strong binding affinities for certain phytoconstituents, suggesting potential mechanisms of action. The phytochemical profile highlighted diverse bioactive compounds contributing to the observed cytotoxic effects. This study identifies Eclipta alba as a promising candidate for cancer therapy, supported by its significant cytotoxicity and strong molecular interactions. The findings provide a foundation for further research into these plant extracts as complementary agents in cancer treatment.

KEYWORDS

0% READ

FULL TEXT

INTRODUCTION

Cancer is a multifaceted and life-threatening disease that remains one of the leading causes of death globally (Hanahan, 2022). According to the World Health Organization (WHO), cancer accounted for nearly 10 million deaths in 2020, with cervical cancer (caused by HeLa cells) and colorectal cancer (modeled by HCT116 cells) representing significant proportions of this burden. Current treatment options such as chemotherapy, radiation and surgery, while effective to varying degrees are often accompanied by severe side effects and limitations in selectivity towards malignant cells (Bray et al., 2022; Bray and Parkin, 2022). These challenges have prompted a global pursuit for safer, cost-effective and targeted anticancer therapies. One promising avenue involves exploring plant-derived bioactive compounds, which exhibit significant anticancer activity due to their ability to modulate multiple cancer pathways while maintaining biocompatibility (Sung et al., 2021).

Plant secondary metabolites, commonly referred to as phytocompounds, have gained substantial attention in recent years due to their diverse biological properties, including antioxidant, anti-inflammatory and anticancer activities (de Luna et al., 2023; Marques et al., 2021). Polyphenols, flavonoids, terpenoids and alkaloids, among others, have been shown to induce apoptosis, suppress angiogenesis and interfere with cancer-promoting pathways such as those mediated by Nuclear Factor-Kappa B (NF-κB), Mitogen-Activated Protein Kinase (MAPK) and Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF) (Parekh et al., 2023; Situmorang et al., 2024). For example, extracts from Asystasia gangetica, enriched with polyphenols, demonstrated remarkable cytotoxicity in in vitro studies, alongside significant interactions with cancer-related proteins in molecular docking (in silico) analyses (Pyo et al., 2024; de Luna et al., 2023).

Modern research methodologies combining in silico and in vitro approaches offer a robust platform to evaluate the anticancer potential of phytochemicals. In silico methods, including molecular docking and dynamics simulations, facilitate the prediction of compound-protein interactions, offering insights into the binding efficiency and mechanism of action of phytochemicals against critical cancer targets like Bcl-2 and VEGFR (Samadarsi et al., 2022; Yousef et al., 2022). These computational predictions, when coupled with in vitro studies such as cell viability assays, flow cytometry and ROS production analysis, provide a comprehensive understanding of the therapeutic potential of these compounds. For instance, a study on the bioactive compounds from Annona macroprophyllata demonstrated their ability to induce apoptosis in cancer cells through Bcl-2 inhibition, validated both computationally and experimentally (Ramírez-Santos et al., 2024).

Cervical cancer, represented by HeLa cells, is predominantly caused by persistent infection with Human Papillomavirus (HPV), leading to genetic mutations and uncontrolled cell proliferation. On the other hand, colorectal cancer, modeled by HCT116 cells, is characterized by mutations in the Wnt/β-catenin signaling pathway, among others. Both cancer types are aggressive and require novel therapeutic strategies that can selectively target tumor cells. Plant-derived compounds, due to their structural diversity and multitarget potential, provide an ideal foundation for developing such therapies (Wang et al., 2020; Sharma et al., 2021).

This study focuses on evaluating the anticancer activity of selected phytocompounds from plant extracts using in silico and in vitro techniques. By analyzing their interactions with key cancer proteins and assessing their cytotoxicity against HeLa and HCT116 cell lines, the research aims to identify potent, natural anticancer agents with translational potential for clinical applications. The integration of computational and experimental approaches in this study underscores the importance of combining technological advancements with natural product research to address the global challenge of cancer treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Plant Material Collection

In this study, leaves of Solanum virginianum, Hibiscus rosa-sinensis, Piper betle and Eclipta alba were gathered from the Tirunelveli district of Tamil Nadu, India, during September and October 2023. Dr. C. Babu, Head and Associate Professor of Botany at Pioneer Kumaraswamy College, Nagercoil, identified and authenticated the plant specimens. The leaves were thoroughly rinsed to eliminate dust, laid out on plain paper and air-dried in the shade at room temperature for about 10 days. The dried leaves were then ground into a fine powder, which was stored in airtight containers for future use.

Preparation of Extracts

To prepare the extracts, 25 g of powdered material from each plant (Solanum virginianum, Hibiscus rosa-sinensis, Piper betle and Eclipta alba) were mixed with 250 mL of ethanol and extracted using a Soxhlet apparatus until the solvent turned colorless. The solvent was then evaporated at room temperature and the extract was preserved in airtight containers for further testing.

Phytochemical Analysis

Phytochemical analyses of the plants (Solanum virginianum, Hibiscus rosa-sinensis, Piper betle and Eclipta alba) were conducted following standard procedures established by RNS Yadav and Munin Agarwala (Yadav and Agarwala, 2011). The leaf samples were subjected to various qualitative tests to identify the presence of specific phytochemicals, including terpenoids, steroids, fatty acids, phenolic compounds, alkaloids, saponins and flavonoids.

Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS) Analysis

The GC-MS analysis for the ethanolic extracts was conducted at Heber Analytical Instrumentation Facility (HAIF) at Bishop Heber College in Trichy using a SHIMADZU GC MS QP2020 system. This system included an autosampler, injector, gas chromatograph (GC-2010) and mass spectrometer, utilizing a capillary standard non-polar SHRxi-5Sil-MS column (30.0 m length, 0.25 mm diameter, 0.25 µm film thickness). The electron ionization apparatus operated at 70 eV, with a 5 µL injection volume and helium carrier gas (99.99% pure) flowing at 1.20 mL/min and a split ratio of 10. The GC oven was programmed to begin at 50ºC, held for 2 min, then ramped to 280ºC over 10 min. Data was collected in the m/z range of 50-500 with a 0.3-second scan interval, taking 21 min to complete. Percentage quantification for each identified component was calculated from the ratio of its peak area to the total peak area using Shimadzu GC-MS real-time software (Sehim et al., 2023).

Component Identification

The GC-MS spectra were analyzed using the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) (Stein, 2012) and WILEY (Hubschmann, 2015) databases, which contain extensive patterns for spectral comparison. Each unknown compound’s spectra were compared with known profiles in these libraries to identify molecular structure, weight and formula.

Molecular Docking Studies

Molecular docking was performed to study interactions between proteins from Colon (5FGK) and Cervical (4J96) cancer cell lines and plant compounds, using AutoDock Vina (Trott and Olson, 2010). Chemical structures of the phytochemicals were built with ChemDraw 8.0 and ChemBio3D was used for energy minimization. Ligand structures were then used as input for AutoDock Vina for docking simulations (Elmezayen et al., 2021). Receptor structures were downloaded from the Protein Data Bank (5FGK for Colon, 4J96 for Cervical) and prepared with AutoDock 4.0’s auto preparation feature. The docking grid box, defined to set simulation parameters, measured 30×30×30 grid points with 0.375-point spacing. Coordinates for Colon protein (5FGK) were -6.278197, -19.093869, and 148.253541; for Cervical protein (4J96), they were 37.442917, 11.807821, 22.762488. The AutoDock Vina algorithm identified optimal ligand-protein binding configurations, examining up to nine conformers for each ligand. PyMOL and Discovery Studio Visualizer tools analyzed the interactions, with the lowest free energy conformations selected for further examination, displaying hydrogen bonds and interacting residues in detail.

RESULTS

Qualitative Phytochemical Analysis

The Table 1 summarizes the qualitative phytochemical analysis of four different plant materials: Solanum virginianum, Hibiscus rosa-sinensis, Piper betle and Eclipta alba. Each plant was tested for the presence of various phytochemicals, including proteins, carbohydrates, phenols, flavonoids, saponins, steroids, terpenoids, alkaloids, glycosides and tannins. Hibiscus rosa-sinensis lacked detectable protein content. In Carbohydrates (Benedict Reagent Test): High carbohydrate presence was noted in Solanum virginianum and Eclipta alba. Hibiscus rosa-sinensis showed a low concentration, while Piper betle did not show carbohydrate presence. In Phenols (Ferric Chloride Test), Hibiscus rosa-sinensis, Piper betle and Eclipta alba showed a high phenol content, suggesting strong antioxidant potential in these plants. Solanum virginianum contained a moderate amount. In Flavonoids (Lead Acetate Test), Hibiscus rosa-sinensis and Eclipta alba showed moderate flavonoid content, whereas Solanum virginianum and Piper betle exhibited lower levels. In Saponins (Growth Test), Present at moderate levels in Hibiscus rosa-sinensis and in low concentrations in Solanum virginianum and Eclipta alba). Piper betle did not show any presence of saponins. In Steroids (Chloroform Test), Steroids were highly present in Solanum virginianum, while Hibiscus rosa-sinensis, Piper betle and Eclipta alba contained low levels. In Terpenoids (Chloroform Test), High terpenoid content was noted in Solanum virginianum and Piper betle, with moderate levels in Hibiscus rosa-sinensis and Eclipta alba. In Alkaloids (Wagner and Mayer Test), High concentrations of alkaloids were observed in Solanum virginianum and Eclipta alba, while Hibiscus rosa-sinensis and Piper betle showed moderate levels. In Glycosides (Brown Ring Test), High levels of glycosides were present in Eclipta alba, with moderate concentrations in Solanum virginianum and low levels in Hibiscus rosa-sinensis and Piper betle. In Tannins (NaOH Test), Solanum virginianum, Eclipta alba and Hibiscus rosa-sinensis all exhibited high tannin concentrations, while Piper betle showed no presence of tannins.

Table 1: Qualitative phytochemical analysis of plant materials.
Phytochemical analysisPlant material
Solanum VirginianumHibiscus rosa sinensisPiper betleEclipta alba
Protein (Xanthoprotein test).++_+++++
Carbohydrate (Benedict reagent test).++++-+++
Phenol(Ferric chloride test).++++++++++
Flavonoid(Lead acetate test).+++ +++++
Saponins (Growth test).+++-+
Steroid(Chloroform test).++++++
Terpenoids (Chloroform test).++++++++++
Alkaloid(Wagner and Mayer test).++++++++++
Glycoside (Brown ring test).+++++++
Tannin (NaOH test).+++++-+++

GC-MS Analysis

Table 2 summarizes the key phytocompounds found in the ethanolic extracts of Solanum virginianum, Eclipta alba, Hibiscus rosa-sinensis and Piper betle, as identified by GC-MS analysis. Each plant extract contained various compounds, categorized by retention time, percentage peak area, compound name, molecular formula, molecular weight and phytochemical classification. For Solanum virginianum, prominent compounds include Stearic acid (6.12%), Hexadecanoic acid (4.12%) and Phytol (5.78%), indicating a high concentration of fatty acids and diterpenoids. The plant also contains ester derivatives like Diethyl 2-(p-tolyl) malonate and Ethyl oleate, suggesting potential anti-inflammatory properties. In Eclipta alba, the main components were n-Hexadecanoic acid (26.98%) and 9-octadecynoic acid (26.95%), both fatty acids recognized for their anti-inflammatory and antimicrobial effects. Other noteworthy compounds include Stigmasterol and Stigmasta-3,5-dien-7-one, which are steroids with cholesterol-lowering and possible anticancer benefits. Additionally, the presence of Phytol (0.703%) as a diterpenoid and Skimmien (1.702%) as a triterpenoid supports the plant’s therapeutic potential. The primary compounds in Hibiscus rosa-sinensis include Hexadecanoic acid (22.65%) and Neophytadiene (5.28%), both known for anti-inflammatory and antimicrobial properties. Phytol (13.72%) and Loliolide, a benzofuran derivative, contribute antioxidant effects, making this plant suitable for skin-related applications. For Piper betle, notable compounds were Diethyl phthalate (6.78%) and Neophytadiene (7.42%), indicating antimicrobial and antioxidant activity. Additional compounds like Eugenol and Caryophyllene, both known for strong anti-inflammatory and analgesic effects, align with the traditional use of Piper betle in oral care and as an anti-infective treatment (Figure 1).

Figure 1: GC-MS chromatogram of Solanum virginianum, Eclipta alba, Hibiscus rosa sinensis and Piper betle.
Table 2: Major phytocompounds in ethanolic extracts of Solanum Virginianum, Eclipta Alba, Hibiscus rosa sinensis and Piper betle by GC-MS chromatogram.
Name of the PlantRetention TimePeak Area%Name of the CompoundMolecular formulaMolecular weightName of the phytocompounds
Solanum virginianum20.164.31Diethyl 2-(p-tolyl) malonate.C14H18O4250Ester derivative
19.911.46diethyl phthalate.C12H14O4222Ester derivative
29.936.12Stearic acid.C18H36O2284Acid
26.7754.12Hexadecanoic acid.C16H32O2256Acid
25.4681.05Methyl linoleate.C19H34O2294Ester derivative
26.712.04Linoleic acid.C20H36O2308Acid
27.8353.46Ethyl oleate.C20H38O2310Ester derivative
28.9642.01Ethyl linoleate.C20H36O2308Ester
29.4655.78phytolC20H40O296Diterpenoid
Eclipta alba15.42326.978n-Hexadecanoic acid.C16H32O2256Acid
16.5210.139Sterculic acid.C19H34O2294Mono saturated fatty acid
18.6120.7232-(3,4-Methylenedioxyphenyl) cyclohexenone.C13H14O3218Ketone Derivative
21.53426.9489-octadecynoic acid.C18H32O2280Acid
22.6513.455Oleic Acid.C18H34O2282Acid
23.4614.968Octadecanoic acid.C18H36O2284Acid
24.5410.348Phthalic acid, di(2-propylpentyl) ester.C24H38O4390Benzoate Ester
25.6310.703PhytolC20H40O296Diterpenoid
26.4283.082Stigmasterol.C29H48O412Steroid
27.56415.456Stigmasta-3,5-dien-7-one.C29H46O410Steroid
28.2141.702Skimmien.C30H50410Triterpenoid
Hibiscus rosa sinensis18.8751.734-Allyl 2,6- dimethoxy phenol.C11H16O3196Phenol
19.4911.58LoliolideC14H28O2299Benzofuran
19.6150.78Tetradecanoic acidC20H38278Acid
20.6855.28NeophytadineC16H32O2333Diterpenoid
21.93322.65Hexadecanoic acidC20H40O296Acid
23.3213.72PhytolC11H16O3196Diterpenoid
Piper betle20.096.78Diethyl phthalateC12H14O4222Ester Derivative
15.4552.53EugenolC10H12O2164Phenyl propanoid
17.91.79Isoxylic acidC9H10O2150Benzoic acid
16.612.03CaryophylleneC15H24204Sesquiterpenoid
24.5357.42NeophytadieneC20H38278Diterpenoid

Molecular docking Analysis

Table 3 provides an overview of the binding energy values for various phytocompounds from Solanum virginianum, Eclipta alba, Hibiscus rosa-sinensis and Piper betle when docked with proteins associated with cervical and colon cancer cell lines. The Table includes each compound’s binding interactions (hydrogen, electrostatic and hydrophobic) and binding energy values in kcal/mol, where more negative values indicate stronger binding affinities. Compounds from all four plants displayed a range of binding affinities with the cancer proteins, with energies between -5.0 and -11.4 kcal/mol. Notably, Eclipta alba’s Stigmasterol and Skimmien had the strongest affinities, showing values up to -10.1 kcal/mol against cervical cancer proteins and -11.4 kcal/mol against colon cancer proteins, suggesting their potential efficacy in targeting cancer-related proteins. Frequent hydrogen bonding with amino acids such as LYS517, ASP173 and PHE97 was observed, which are crucial for stabilizing protein-ligand complexes (Figure 2). Hydrophobic interactions, particularly with residues like VAL35, ALA50 and TYR566, also played a significant role in enhancing the compounds' affinities for cancer proteins. In Solanum virginianum, Diethyl 2-(p-tolyl) malonate and Stearic acid showed moderate affinities (-6.9 and -5.7 kcal/mol, respectively) with cervical cancer proteins, indicating potential for anticancer activity via protein inhibition. In Eclipta alba, Furan-2-carbohydrazide demonstrated strong binding (-8.2 kcal/mol) with colon cancer proteins, likely due to its hydrogen bonding and electrostatic interactions.

Figure 2: 2D and 3D structure of stigmasterol (A and B) and Skimmien (C and D) interaction with HeLa and HCT116 cell line.
Table 3: Binding energy values of Solanum virginianum, Hibiscus rosa sinensis, Piper betle and Eclipta alba phytocompounds to targeted cervical cancer and colon cancer cell line proteins.
SolventName of the CompoundBinding InteractionCervical cancerBinding InteractionColon cancer
HydrogenElectrostaticHydrophobicHydrogenElectrostaticHydrophobic
Solanum virginianumDiethyl 2- (p- tolyl) malonateLYS517:HZ3LEU487, ALA643, TYR566-6.9LYS52, ASP1 73-ALA50, ALA100, PH E97,TYR99, PHE17 6-6.9
diethyl phthalatePHE492, GLY493, LYS517ASP644PHE492-6.1LYS52, ASP1 73-PHE97, TYR32-6.3
Stearic acidASP644,-VAL495,ALA515,ALA567,LEU633 ALA643,TYR566-5.7ALA100-VAL27, VAL35, AL A50, LYS52, LEU15 8, ALA172-5.9
Hexadecanoic acidGLY646, LEU647,-LEU647, ARG664, PHE492-5ARG356,-VAL35, ALA50, LY S52, ALA172, TYR3 2, PHE97-5.7
Methyl linoleateLYS517, ASP644,-VAL495,ALA515 ALA567,LEU633, ALA643,TYR566-5.7ASP103, ALA 155-VAL35, ALA50, LY S52, ILE79, ALA172, TYR32, PHE97PHE 176-6.6
Linoleic acidASN571-VAL495,ALA515, LYS517,VAL564,ALA567,ALA64 3,TYR566-6--VAL35, ALA50, LY S52, ALA172, PHE9 7-6.7
Ethyl oleateASN571-VAL495,ALA515,LYS517,VAL564 ALA567,ALA643, TYR566-5.7ALA100-VAL35, LYS52, AL A172, TYR32, PHE9 7-6.4
phytol--VAL35,ALA50, LYS52,ILE79, LEU158,ALA172, TYR32,PHE97-6.6--VAL35, ALA50, LY S52, ILE79, LEU158, ALA172, TYR32, PH E97-6.6
Eclipta albaFuran-2- carbohydrazide, N2-(3-indolylmethylene)-LYS517MG805LEU487, LEU633-7.7ASP173, LYS 52LYS52, GLU66: PHE97-8.2
Sterculic acidGLY646, LEU647-LEU647,ARG6-5.7ALA100VAL35, ALA50, LY-6.4
64,PHE492S52, LEU158, ALA1 72, TYR32,PHE97
2-(3,4-Methylenedioxy phenyl) cyclohexanone-LYS517,GLU534VAL564, VAL495, ALA515-7.8LYS52-TYR32, VAL35, AL A50, ALA100,TYR9 9-7.9
5-Isopropyl-2,8- dimethyl- 9oxatricycl[4.4 .0.0(2,8)]decan- 7-oneASN571-ALA567, TYR566-7.3--PHE97-8.3
Oleic AcidARG630ARG664, PHE492-5.4--VAL35, ALA50, LY S52, LEU158, ALA1 72, TYR32, PHE97-6.5
Phthalic acid,di(2-propylpentyl) esterLYS517, GLY646LYS517VAL495, LEU6 47, PHE492-6.3LYS52-TYR32,ALA50,ILE 79,ALA100,LEU158,ALA172,PHE97,T YR99,PHE176-7.4
Stigmasterol--LEU487, ALA491, VAL4 95-8.4--VAL27,VAL35,VA L35,ALA50,ALA17 2-10.1
Stigmasta-3,5- dien-7- one--LEU647, PHE492-8.3--VAL35,ALA155, LEU158,ALA172, PHE 97-9.6
SkimmienPHE492-10VAL35,LYS52-11.4
Hibiscus rosa sinensis4-Allyl 2,6 dimethoxy phenolASN571-LEU633,ALA567, ALA643, TYR566-7.4LYS52PHE97, ALA50, TY R32,PHE97,PHE17 6-6.2
LoliolideALA567, TYR566---6.5VAL27,VAL35,VA L35,ALA50, ALA172-7.1
Tetradecanoic acid--VAL35,ALA50, LYS52,ALA172, TYR32, PHE97-5.8--VAL35, ALA50, LY S52, ALA172,TYR3 2,PHE97-5.8
Neophytadine--LEU487, VAL495, LA515,LYS517, VAL564, LEU633,-5.7VAL35,ALA50,LY S52,ILE79,ALA100, LEU158,ALA172,T-6.9
ALA643YR32, PHE97
Hexadecanoic acidASP644-LEU487,VAL495, ALA515, ALA567, LEU633, ALA643, TYR566-5.3ALA100-VAL35, LYS52, AL A172, TYR32, PHE9 7-5.7
Phytol--VAL35, ALA50, LYS52,ILE79, LEU158, ALA172, TYR32, PHE97-6.6--VAL35, ALA50, LY S52, ILE79, LEU158, ALA172, TYR32, PH E97-6.6
Piper betleDiethylphthalatePHE492, GLY493, LYS517ASP644PHE492-6.1LYS52, ASP1 73-PHE97, TYR32-6.3
EugenolLYS517, ASP644-ALA517, ALS567 ALA643, TYR566-5.9ASP173LYS52PHE97, ALA50TYR 32-6.2
glycidyl phenyletherALA491, PHE492LYS517, GLU534--5.2--VAL35, TYR32-5.5
Isoxylic acidALA491, LYS517B: LYS517, GLU5 34, ASP644PHE492-6.3ARG356-PHE97,-6.4
Caryophyllene--LEU487, VAL495, ALA515,ALA567, LEU633, TYR566-7.4--ALA50.ILE79, ALA 172, PHE97-8.3
Neophytadiene--LEU487,VAL495, ALA515,LYS517, VAL564,LEU633, ALA643-5.7VAL35,ALA50,LY S52,ILE79,ALA100, LEU158,ALA172,T YR32,PHE97-6.9
Reference drug - CamptothecinLYS517, ALA567 TYR566, ALA56-LEU487, LEU633, VAL495, ALA51-9.5LYS153, ASP 173-ALA172,ALA155,L EU158,ILE79-10.2

Hibiscus rosa-sinensis exhibited moderate binding in compounds such as 4-Allyl 2,6-dimethoxy phenol (-7.4 kcal/mol) with cervical cancer proteins, aided by hydrogen bonding and hydrophobic effects. In Piper betle, Eugenol and Caryophyllene showed affinities of -5.9 and -7.4 kcal/mol, respectively, with cervical cancer proteins, supporting their potential as complementary agents in cancer therapy. The reference drug Camptothecin demonstrated binding energies of -9.5 kcal/mol (cervical cancer) and -10.2 kcal/mol (colon cancer). Several plant compounds, including Stigmasterol, Skimmien and Stigmasta-3,5-dien-7-one, achieved or exceeded these values, suggesting they may serve as natural alternatives or complements to conventional cancer treatments.

In vitro anticancer Activity

Table 4 compares the IC50 values of phytocompounds from Solanum virginianum, Hibiscus rosa-sinensis, Piper betle and Eclipta alba with the reference drug camptothecin against two cancer cell lines: HeLa (cervical cancer) and HCT116 (colon cancer). Among the plant extracts, Eclipta alba showed the lowest IC50 values, with 30 µg/mL for HeLa and 24 µg/mL for HCT116, indicating the highest potency. Solanum virginianum displayed IC50 values of 69 µg/mL (HeLa) and 59 µg/mL (HCT116), demonstrating moderate activity. Hibiscus rosa-sinensis had IC50 values of 86 µg/mL (HeLa) and 72 µg/mL (HCT116), the highest values among the extracts, suggesting lower potency. Piper betle exhibited IC50 values of 75 µg/mL (HeLa) and 66 µg/mL (HCT116), reflecting moderate efficacy (Figures 2 and 3). The reference drug camptothecin showed IC50 values of 32 µg/mL (HeLa) and 28 µg/mL (HCT116), indicating greater effectiveness than all plant extracts except Eclipta alba (Figure 4). Eclipta alba demonstrated notable promise as an anti-cancer agent, showing IC50 values comparable to the reference drug camptothecin, positioning it as a strong candidate for further research in cervical and colon cancer treatment. In contrast, other extracts such as Hibiscus rosa-sinensis and Piper betle exhibited lower potency, suggesting more limited effectiveness.

Figure 3: Viability of HeLa cell line treated with Eclipta alba extract in MTT assay A. 10 µg/mL shows 69.48% viability, B. 20 µg/mL extract shows 61.16% viability, C. 40 µg/mL shows 53.01% viability, D. 80 µg/mL shows 35.98% viability, E. 160 µg/mL shows 15.93% F. vehicle control shows 53.64% viability.
Figure 4: Viability of HCT116 cell line treated with Eclipta alba extract in MTT assay A. 10 µg/mL shows 66.22% viability, B. 20 µg/mL extract shows 43.57% viability, C. 40 µg/mL shows 31.81% viability, D. 80 µg/mL shows 20.55% viability, E. 160 µg/mL shows 15.03% F. vehicle control shows 28.32% viability.
Table 4: IC50 values of solanum virginianum, Hibiscus rosa sinensis, Piper betle and Eclipta alba phytocompounds to targeted cervical cancer and colon cancer cell line proteins.
Sl. No.Plant ExtractIC50 (µg/mL)
HeLa CellHCT116 Cell
1solanum virginianum6959
2Hibiscus Rosa sinensis8672
3Piper betle7566
4Eclipta alba3024
5Reference drug - Camptothecin3228

DISCUSSION

The qualitative analysis reveals that each plant material possesses unique phytochemical profiles, which can be related to potential therapeutic benefits. For example: Eclipta alba exhibited high levels of protein, carbohydrate, alkaloid, glycoside and tannins, making it a good candidate for antioxidant and anti-inflammatory studies. Solanum virginianum showed diverse phytochemical presence, particularly in steroids, terpenoids and alkaloids, suggesting potential antimicrobial and anti-inflammatory properties. Hibiscus rosa-sinensis contained notable levels of phenols, flavonoids and tannins, supporting its known antioxidant and skin-soothing effects. Piper betle showed a strong presence of terpenoids and phenols, which may contribute to its known anti-microbial properties. This analysis suggests the potential for using these plants in therapeutic formulations, highlighting the importance of each plant's unique phytochemical profile for different health applications.

The GC-MS analysis demonstrates that each plant has a distinct phytochemical profile with potential therapeutic applications. Solanum virginianum and Eclipta alba are notably rich in fatty acids and sterols, which may account for their anti-inflammatory and cholesterol-lowering properties. Hibiscus rosa-sinensis contains a wealth of antioxidants and anti-inflammatory compounds, suggesting its suitability for skincare applications. Piper betle features a variety of essential oils and anti-inflammatory agents, aligning with its traditional uses in oral and respiratory health. These findings underscore the medicinal potential of these plants and emphasize the need for further research to explore and confirm the therapeutic effects of these bioactive compounds.

This docking analysis highlights the ability of plant-based compounds, particularly from Eclipta alba and Solanum virginianum, to interact with cancer-related proteins through hydrogen bonding and hydrophobic interactions, with binding affinities close to those of Camptothecin. These findings point to compounds like Stigmasterol and Skimmien as promising candidates for further investigation in developing plant-derived therapies for cervical and colon cancer, laying a foundation for future in vitro and in vivo studies to confirm their efficacy.

Overall, HCT116 cells (colon cancer) exhibited slightly lower IC50 values across all extracts than HeLa cells, indicating a higher sensitivity to these phytocompounds. These findings highlight Eclipta alba’s potential for future cancer studies, while Solanum virginianum, Hibiscus rosa-sinensis and Piper betle may serve as valuable options in combination therapies or as complementary treatments.

CONCLUSION

The phytochemical analysis, docking studies and IC50 assays highlight Eclipta alba as having the most promising anti-cancer potential, showing the highest cytotoxicity and binding affinity among the extracts tested. Solanum virginianum, Hibiscus rosa-sinensis and Piper betle also exhibited moderate activity, with compounds like stigmasterol and skimmien achieving binding affinities close to those of camptothecin. These findings indicate that Eclipta alba is a strong candidate as a natural anti-cancer agent, meriting further in vivo research to assess its effectiveness. The distinct phytochemical profiles of each extract suggest potential for developing multi-targeted therapeutic approaches, using these plants individually or in combination with established anti-cancer drugs.

REFERENCES

As published

Showing references and in-text citations exactly as published.

  1. 1.Bray, F.; Laversanne, M.; Sung, H.; Ferlay, J.; Siegel, R. L.; Soerjomataram, I. et al. Global cancer statistics 2022: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. 2024;74(3):229–263. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21834DOIGOOGLE SCHOLAR
  2. 2.Bray, F.; Parkin, D. M.; African Cancer Registry Network. Cancer in sub-Saharan Africa in 2020: A review of current estimates of the national burden, data gaps and future needs. The Lancet. Oncology. 2022;23(6):719–728. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(22DOIGOOGLE SCHOLAR
  3. 3.de Luna, F. C. F.; Ferreira, W. A. S.; Casseb, S. M. M.; de Oliveira, E. H. C.. Anticancer potential of flavonoids: An overview with an emphasis on tangeretin. Pharmaceuticals. 2023;16(9):1229. https://doi.org/10.3390/ph16091229DOIGOOGLE SCHOLAR
  4. 4.Elmezayen, A. D.; Al-Obaidi, A.; Şahin, A. T.; Yelekçi, K.. Drug repurposing for coronavirus (COVID-19): In silico screening of known drugs against coronavirus 3CL hydrolase and protease enzymes. Journal of Biomolecular Structure and Dynamics. 2021;39(8):2980–2992. https://doi.org/10.1080/07391102.2020.1758791DOIGOOGLE SCHOLAR
  5. 5.Hanahan, D.. Hallmarks of cancer: New dimensions. Cancer Discovery. 2022;12(1):31–46. https://doi.org/10.1158/2159-8290.CD-21-1059DOIGOOGLE SCHOLAR
  6. 6.Hubschmann, H. J.. Handbook of GC-MS: Fundamentals and applications. John Wiley & Sons. 2015.GOOGLE SCHOLAR
  7. 7.Marques, S. M.; Šupolíková, L.; Molčanová, L.; Šmejkal, K.; Bednar, D.; Slaninová, I.. Screening of natural compounds as P-glycoprotein inhibitors against multidrug resistance. Biomedicines. 2021;9(4):357. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines9040357DOIGOOGLE SCHOLAR
  8. 8.Parekh, N.; Garg, A.; Choudhary, R.; Gupta, M.; Kaur, G.; Ramniwas, S. et al. The role of natural flavonoids as telomerase inhibitors in suppressing cancer growth. Pharmaceuticals. 2023;16(4):605. https://doi.org/10.3390/ph16040605DOIGOOGLE SCHOLAR
  9. 9.Pyo, Y.; Kwon, K. H.; Jung, Y. J.. Anticancer potential of flavonoids: Their role in cancer prevention and health benefits. Foods. 2024;13(14):2253. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods13142253DOIGOOGLE SCHOLAR
  10. 10.Ramírez-Santos, J.; Calzada, F.; Ordoñez-Razo, R. M.; Mendieta-Wejebe, J. E.; Velázquez-Domínguez, J. A.; Argüello-García, R. et al. In vivo, in vitro and in silico anticancer activity of Ilama leaves: An edible and medicinal plant in Mexico. Molecules. 2024;29(9):1956. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules29091956DOIGOOGLE SCHOLAR
  11. 11.Samadarsi, R.; Augustin, L.; Kumar, C.; Dutta, D.. In silico and in vitro studies on the efficacy of mangiferin against colorectal cancer. BMC Chemistry. 2022;16(1):42. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13065-022-00835-9DOIGOOGLE SCHOLAR
  12. 12.Sehim, A. E.; Amin, B. H.; Yosri, M.; Salama, H. M.; Alkhalifah, D. H.; Alwaili, M. A. et al. GC-MS Analysis, antibacterial and Anticancer Activities ofHibiscus sabdariffa. L. methanolic Extract. Microorganisms. 2023;11(6):1601. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11061601DOIGOOGLE SCHOLAR
  13. 13.Sharma, A.; Mir, R.; Galande, S.. Epigenetic regulation of the Wnt/-Catenin signaling pathway in cancer. Frontiers in Genetics. 2021;12:Article 681053. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2021.681053DOIGOOGLE SCHOLAR
  14. 14.Situmorang, P. C.; Ilyas, S.; Nugraha, S. E.; Syahputra, R. A.; Nik Abd Rahman, N. M. A.. Prospects of compounds of herbal plants as anticancer agents: A comprehensive review from molecular pathways. Frontiers in Pharmacology. 2024;15:Article 1387866. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2024.1387866DOIGOOGLE SCHOLAR
  15. 15.Stein, S.. Mass spectral reference libraries: An ever-expanding resource for chemical identification. Analytical Chemistry. 2012;84(17):7274–7282. https://doi.org/10.1021/ac301205zDOIGOOGLE SCHOLAR
  16. 16.Sung, H.; Ferlay, J.; Siegel, R. L.; Laversanne, M.; Soerjomataram, I.; Jemal, A. et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. 2021;71(3):209–249. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21660DOIGOOGLE SCHOLAR
  17. 17.Trott, O.; Olson, A. J.. AutoDock Vina: Improving the speed and accuracy of docking with a new scoring function, efficient optimization and multithreading. Journal of Computational Chemistry. 2010;31(2):455–461. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcc.21334DOIGOOGLE SCHOLAR
  18. 18.Wang, B.; Li, X.; Liu, L.; Wang, M.. β-catenin: Oncogenic role and therapeutic target in cervical cancer. Biological Research. 2020;53(1):33. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40659-020-00301-7DOIGOOGLE SCHOLAR
  19. 19.Yadav, R. N. S.; Agarwala, M.. Phytochemical analysis of some medicinal plants. Journal of Phytology. 2011;3(12).GOOGLE SCHOLAR
  20. 20.Yousef, R. G.; Eldehna, W. M.; Elwan, A.; Abdelaziz, A. S.; Mehany, A. B. M.; Gobaara, I. M. M. et al. Design, synthesis, In Silico and In Vitro Studies of New Immunomodulatory Anticancer Nicotinamide Derivatives Targeting VEGFR-2. Molecules. 2022;27(13):4079. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules27134079DOIGOOGLE SCHOLAR

Cite this article

SELECT FORMAT

Subbulakshmi, E., Kumaresan, S., & Palanisamy, P. (2025). Studies on in silico and in vitro Anticancer Activity of Selected Plant Extract Phytocompounds against HeLa and HCT116 Cell Lines. International Journal of Pharmaceutical Investigation, 15(3), 942–952. https://doi.org/10.5530/ijpi.20250195